Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ronald Maurice Woods appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Woods a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Ronald Maurice Woods appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Woods a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-7559

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ronald Maurice Woods appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Woods a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Woods, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ronald Maurice Woods appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit denied Woods a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, dispensing with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-7559

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RONALD MAURICE WOODS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-18-R)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 1999

    Decided:

    March 30, 1999

    Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Ronald Maurice Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Maurice Woods seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994
    & Supp. 1998).

    We have reviewed the record and the district

    courts opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny


    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See United States v. Woods, Nos. CR-

    95-7; CA-98-18-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 1998).

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like